United States v. James Sorrell

584 F. App'x 847

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 30, 2014
• Docket: 11-30310
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

James Robert Sorrell appeals from his jury-trial conviction for failure to register as a sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a). Sorrell challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see United States v. Cabrera-Gutierrez, 756 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.2014), and we affirm.

Sorrell first contends that his conviction violated due process because he had no notice of his obligation to register under SORNA. This claim fails because the record reflects that Sorrell was advised of his duty to register under state law. See United States v. Elkins, 688 F.3d 1039, 1050 (9th Cir.2012).

Sorrell next contends that SORNA violates the non-delegation doctrine because it allows the Attorney General to legislate SORNA’s retroactive application. This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Richardson, 754 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir.2014) (per curiam) (“SORNA’s delegation of authority to the Attorney General to determine the applicability of SORNA’s registration requirements to pre-SORNA sex offenders is consistent with the requirements of the non-delegation doctrine.”).

Finally, Sorrell contends that Congress did not have the power to enact SORNA. This contention is also foreclosed. See Cabrera-Gutierrez, 756 F.3d at 1129-32 (Congress had the power under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses to enact SORNA and its registration requirement).

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.